Plea for balanced reporting on livestock farming

More than 1,000 scientists are making a case against the one-sided and negative reporting on livestock farming and meat and dairy consumption. According to Professor Frédéric Leroy of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, who specializes in food science and (bio)technology, such negative reporting can be damaging, especially given its impact on both national and European policies.

Leroy notes that scientists' personal beliefs in the field of nutrition often play too dominant a role. He advocates objective and independent research on nutrition, sustainability and health to promote a more balanced discussion.

Importance of independent research

Opponents of animal-based nutrition often present themselves as "the voice of science," Leroy explains. This "voice" does not always evaluate evidence objectively and offers little room for critical evaluation or dialogue. The objectivity of researchers is crucial so that they are not influenced by ideologies, large corporations or NGOs with specific agendas.

Moreover, Leroy believes that scientists should refrain from making strong political statements in research reports that could influence policy, especially when the experiments are large and the data uncertain. He emphasizes that there is currently insufficient consensus on the health risks of meat consumption and that the benefits of meat, fish, eggs and dairy for human nutrition and public health are often overlooked.

Challenges

Leroy acknowledges that the livestock industry faces challenges such as animal health, animal welfare and sustainability. He stresses that adjustments must be based on sound science and not on simplified or one-sided approaches. He hopes that the debate within the EU will focus more on scientific insights on nutrition, sustainability and health to promote a balanced discussion.

Nederlandvleesland.nl